uakronkid Wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/st...id=2924383
Any fan of the MAC has to absolutely offended by this. I know top to bottom that the MAC is not up to par with the BCS conferences, we all know that the MAC's finest can run with the big boys. Just Wow.
I'm certainly not offended by this. We have no business competing with the likes of Ohio State. OSU, Michigan, Texas, USC, etc. are in leagues of their own even for BCS standards. If OSU was playing Duke instead of Akron, it would be the same deal. The top of the MAC can definitely compete with the mid level BCS schools, but will always have a tough time with the elites.
I'm not offended. We learn a lot and cash the check.
FlashFan Wrote:I'm not offended. We learn a lot and cash the check.
OK. I realise that I over reacted a bit after going back and looking at this again. Still, The Kansas one irked me a bit. Saying that Toledo and CMU are creampuffs, causing Kansas to have the easiest schedule in the country, causes me to believe that this guy has no credibility.
I hate when MAC teams essentially prostitute their programs for a quick payday and a loss against top-ten teams. Why would you do that when you could play mid and lower level BCS teams for a slightly smaller paycheck but a much greater chance to win? The paycheck is nice, but the money you get from a bowl game because you won enough to be eligible far outweighs that. Plus beating those lower BCS teams gives the conference more respect than getting blown out on national TV. I would only play an elite football team if they would come back in a return game, and you know that won't happen very often.
The idiot does not seem to remember that Toledo beat Kansas last year. He also has bowl teams like CMU and WMU as "cupcakes". Does not look like he did much research when creating that list.
oldbronco1 Wrote:The idiot does not seem to remember that Toledo beat Kansas last year. He also has bowl teams like CMU and WMU as "cupcakes". Does not look like he did much research when creating that list.
Definitely. Last year's Rocket team was a mess and they still beat Kansas. Unless they have had a miraculous infusion of top tier talent, I view the two teams as equals.
-Dan
You guys are right. Kansas....I thought this was a basketball thread, but Kansas football is equal to the MAC. Toledo beat them and Toledo didn't even have to play their best game to do it last year. You had to laugh at Kansas that game. They were so pathetic. How many turnovers. I think Toledo won without a firstdown the second half. Kansas should have been the team the FBI was looking at watching that one. Kansas was determined to blow that game and they sure did.
Kansas is worse than Toledo and CMU. They handle the football like its a wet bar of soap.
FlashFan Wrote:I hate when MAC teams essentially prostitute their programs for a quick payday
Try getting a homegame from most of these BCS types. What choice do we have most of the time???
BrewtownBronco Wrote:FlashFan Wrote:I hate when MAC teams essentially prostitute their programs for a quick payday
Try getting a homegame from most of these BCS types. What choice do we have most of the time???
You are replying to the wrong person.
Quote:FlashFan Wrote:
I'm not offended. We learn a lot and cash the check.
It was an Akron fan you were quoting.
There's a major problem with the logic of stating Kansas has creampuffs on its schedule. The term "creampuff" is both relative and subjective. Relative to Kansas, how can another DI Bowl Subdivision team be a creampuff?
I was thinking the same thing. I'd be surprised if CMU does not beat KU by at least two touchdowns with LeFeveor and co.
Big 12 have some teams that are very mediocre and can be beaten by the MAC.
uakronkid Wrote:I hate when MAC teams essentially prostitute their programs for a quick payday and a loss against top-ten teams. Why would you do that when you could play mid and lower level BCS teams for a slightly smaller paycheck but a much greater chance to win? The paycheck is nice, but the money you get from a bowl game because you won enough to be eligible far outweighs that.
So if MAC team #1 plays 2 or 3 of their 4 OOC games and get $400K-$600K+ each and then plays a cupcake for the 4th (at home) they'll make less money than if they pay 4 cupcakes to come and get beat up by them (at home) and possibly make a bowl and all that bowl $$$??? Playing top level BCS schools is also a good recruiting tool, kids that didn't get offered by the bigger schools still like to play against them and the exposure doesn't hurt.
MAC schools net very little money from bowl games. Some have lost money going to bowls.
Exactly, teams have lost money after deducting travel expenses from their portion of the bowl $$ which makes the previous comment about bowl $ ridiculous. Teams have 4 games to do as they please, finding a nice balance of two high-level BCS payouts and 1 lesser and then 1 cupcake is the right way to go about it.
Polish Hammer Wrote:Exactly, teams have lost money after deducting travel expenses from their portion of the bowl $$ which makes the previous comment about bowl $ ridiculous. Teams have 4 games to do as they please, finding a nice balance of two high-level BCS payouts and 1 lesser and then 1 cupcake is the right way to go about it.
I would prefer a mix of mid-level BCS games with return trips and some CUSA, WAC & MWC teams 1 & 1. No creampuffs. Still get bowl eligible.
OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:Big 12 have some teams that are very mediocre and can be beaten by the MAC.
You got that right, the Big 12 North is a 2 team conference at best with Nebraska and MO is finally starting to improve. Not that WMU couldn't beat them in Columbia which would be a great MAC win.
The South has dog teams also. Baylor, TTech has had down years as has OK St.
THe MAC has several interconference games with them and I expect the MAC to do well despite having to play 5 of 7 on the road.
I'm offended that Memphis didn't even make the list! Damn, I can't imagine a more creampuff schedule than ours! (we need it after our whopping 2-10 season last year)